PKB: Law Still Provides Flexibility on Political Party Leaders' Terms
Muhaimin Iskandar believes the proposal to limit political party leaders’ terms to just two periods is a good suggestion. However, according to the Chairman of the National Awakening Party (PKB), this proposal needs further consideration.
This is because, he said, democracy provides space for the internal party process of electing the general chairman. According to him, that process is open and democratic.
In addition, the Coordinating Minister for Community Empowerment stated that to date, there have been no changes to the rules regarding the terms of political party leaders. He referred to Law No. 2 of 2011 on Political Parties.
“The law still provides flexibility,” said Cak Imin, his nickname, when met at the Plaza BP Jamsostek building, Jakarta, on Monday, 27 April 2026.
PKB is not the only party questioning and opposing the proposal to limit political party leaders’ terms. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle also opposes the initiative put forward by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
PDIP spokesperson Guntur Romli assessed the proposal as exceeding the KPK’s authority or ultra vires to the KPK’s duties. “This means the KPK has stepped outside its main tasks and functions,” said Guntur Romli in a written statement to Tempo on Thursday, 23 April 2026.
Guntur said the KPK should focus on law enforcement and prevention of corruption related to state officials and losses to state finances in accordance with the KPK Law.
According to him, dealing with the internal affairs of political parties, which legally are civil society organisations, could be seen as going too far. He believes the KPK should focus on fixing the weakening enforcement system or improving the declining corruption perception index, rather than entering the realm of internal political organisations.
Guntur also opined that the proposal is juridically unconstitutional. This is because political parties are legal entities with internal autonomy as voluntary organisations. He emphasised that the proposal contradicts the principle of freedom of association and assembly in the Constitution or Article 28E paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution.
Besides PKB and PDIP, the National Mandate Party (PAN) has criticised the proposal to limit the periodisation of party leaders. PAN Deputy Chairman Saleh Daulay said that regulating the terms of political party leaders is the authority of the party management itself.
“The KPK is expected not to interfere in regulating technical matters in political parties. Because political parties are political institutions that already have AD/ART as a guide and internal legal basis for activities. If regulated further, it is feared it will cause noise and uproar,” he said in a written statement quoted on Friday, 24 April 2026.
He rejected the KPK’s idea because it does not rule out the possibility that the party internal desires an individual to lead for more than two terms. “Regarding the chairman, let it be decided internally. If everyone agrees to more than two periods, fine. If there is to be a limit, that’s good too. The important thing is that it is included in the AD/ART so it can serve as a legal basis,” he stated.